In his opening comments, Professor
Brian Wynne (University of Lancaster) turned this question around by
asking "whose questions count?" He described how sheep farmers in the UK
asked relevant questions of scientific advisers and made observations
following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster (as discussed in his paper from 1992). Prof Wynne explained that in this context the questions and observations from farmers were largely ignored by scientists.

This
analogy made me think of farmers in a very different, developing-world
context. Small-holder farmers in developing countries frequently have
few channels through which they can question, critique, or respond to
science or policy. In these contexts, policy is prescriptive. While some participatory development projects aim to involve local
communities in identifying issues and determining policy, cases where
this is being successfully implemented are far outnumbered by cases
where there is no such project.

The issues surrounding local,
indigenous expertise in a developing country context were only briefly
raised during this session. Dr Dipak Gyawali (Nepal Academy of Science
and Technology) spoke about the need for more 'toad eye' science and
less 'eagle eye' science (his slides are here).
Though this acknowledges that scientific expertise can come from places
outside of academia, his discussion did not elaborate on the challenges
this presents to hierarchies and how academia and the policy arena can
engage with this.

Dr Alice Bell (SPRU, University of Sussex) spoke
about the role of the public as experts in a developed world context.
She suggested that social media tools such as Twitter can act as a tool
to mobilise the public in challenging scientific advice (see also her
earlier post on this blog). During her presentation (slides here)
my thoughts again turned to how this may be reflected in a developing
country context where access to social media is less widely available,
especially in rural areas. For example, could local radio, widely used
throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, could play a role in the vocalisation of
public opinion regarding science and policy debates?

Policy and
science in developing countries often come from, or are heavily
influenced by developed countries, especially those with colonial links.
It is worth considering whether it is harder for developing countries
to critique or dispute science from developed countries, or to question
the ‘authority’ assigned to scientists in developed countries.

Later
in the day, in her keynote lecture, Anne Glover (Chief Scientific
Adviser to the President, European Commission) used the example of
genetically modified (GM) crops to illustrate this problem. She
explained that if European countries refuse to use GM crops, developing
countries would also refuse them (slides here).
This example highlights the influence of hierarchies from north to
south. In the case of GM crops, developing countries have the potential
to benefit most from growing them, according to Prof Glover, and they
are often cited as a 'fix' for increasing food production in Sub-Saharan
Africa. It is for reasons such as these that those engaged with
development, science and policy arenas must challenge hierarchies of
authority, expertise and influence.

Discussions around authority
of expertise and whose expertise counts centred on UK and western
science and policy systems, and not those of developing countries. Where
the context and systems are so different, understanding whose expertise
and questions count is a complex issue: but it’s arguably a more
important challenge because of population and economic growth in
developing countries. To me, surrounded by such eminent academics, these
issues were under-addressed throughout this session.

Though
questions regarding 'whose expertise counts?' in a developing country
context was under-represented in this session, they were referred to.
Issues regarding 'whose questions count', however, as raised in the
opening remarks of the session, were not touched on. In sessions the
following day, Professor Lidia Brito (UNESCO) and Dr Camilla Toulmin
(International Institute for Environment and Development) both referred
to 'who is asking the questions?' Throughout all of the Symposium’s five
sessions, however, no one attempted to adequately respond to this.

No comments:

OUR BLOG HAS MOVED

Twitter Updates

About the STEPS Centre

The STEPS Centre(Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability)is an interdisciplinary global research and policy engagement hub combining development with science and technology studies.

We aim to develop a new appraoch to understanding, action and communication on sustainability and development. Our work covers agriculture and food, health and disease and water and sanitation.

Why The Crossing?

Crossing: a place at which pathways or tracks intersect; a path which can be crossed to get from one side to the other. We want to generate and encourage debate about pathways to sustainability through our research. The Crossing is a place where that debate can happen. Please join in.